Oscar Bait: Robert Redford to play Dan Rather in film about 2004 ‘Rathergate’ scandal

After losing out on a nomination for his acclaimed, nearly dialogue-free performance in last year's “All Is Lost,” the legendary actor is making another go at Academy consideration (at least in theory) as the star of “Truth,” in which he'll play former CBS news anchor Dan Rather during the career-derailing 2004 “Rathergate” scandal, according to Deadline.

Starring opposite Redford will be Cate Blanchett as Peabody Award-winning “60 Minutes” producer Mary Mapes, who was fired from the program after it was discovered that a series of documents alleged to prove that then-President George W. Bush had been given preferential treatment while serving in the Texas Air National Guard had not been properly authenticated prior to airing on sister program “60 Minutes II.” Though Rather continued on with the network until 2006, his career and reputation suffered irreparable damage from the scandal, leading to a $70 million lawsuit filed in 2007 by the anchor against CBS and parent company Viacom that was later dismissed by New York's Court of Appeals.

Based on Mapes' 2005 memoir “Truth And Duty: The Press, The President, And The Privilege Of Power,” the film will be directed by first-time helmer James Vanderbilt, the screenwriter behind such films as “Amazing Spider-Man 1 & 2,” “White House Down” and David Fincher's “Zodiac.”

If Redford were to receive an Academy Award nomination for the film – a big leap considering the project is just now getting underway – it would be only his second nod as an actor, with his first coming over 40 years ago for 1973's “The Sting.” As a director, he previously took home an Oscar for helming the 1981 Best Picture winner “Ordinary People” and also received a pair of nominations for directing and producing 1994's “Quiz Show.” In 2002 he was awarded an honorary Oscar for his contributions to the film business.

Around The Web

Join The Discussion: Log In With

"Oscar Bait: Robert Redford to play Dan Rather in film about 2004 ‘Rathergate’ scandal"

By: HistoryofMatt

07.09.2014 @ 11:23 PM

No matter what you feel about W, and I’m not a particular fan of his social conservatism which has pretty much nothing to do with actual fiscal responsibility and small, austere government, for anyone to be making a film based on Mapes’ book, which is pretty much a work of fiction, is ridiculous.

It’s not a secret that our Fourth Estate has devolved from a protector of our freedoms and the entity that kept ALL of those in power in check into nothing more than a mouthpiece for one side of the ideological coin; a puppet for the DNC, as it were.

And this incident, which was a naked ploy to destroy the guy the media didn’t like with falsehoods (you know, instead of using actual reasons), pretty much blew any semblance of impartiality right out of the water.

Those who remain impartial journalists are praised when they go after the people in power are Republicans, but then the people who praised them for that forget all about the plaudits they gave when those journalists then go after the Democrats, who the media try to do everything to protect. Thinking mainly about Sharyl Attkisson here.

Honestly, I’m sick of it all. The Founding Fathers never meant for us to be a two party system in this way. It’s time for the middle way to rise up and end the ridiculousness of social conservatives and progressives alike.

And this film… will be completely ridiculous.

And it will utterly fail at the box office. It wants to be All the President’s Men, but the point of view on which its being based is so false and skewed, people will see right through it.

So of course, it will win a bunch of Academy Awards, because lets be honest, it’s not being made for the average American. It’s going to speak to the elitists in New York and LA, and that’s okay, I guess, if preaching to the choir is something to which art should aspire.

By: John G.

07.10.2014 @ 12:26 AM

We need a two-party system because we have first-past-the-post elections. It’s just math.

What you wrote about the media representing one side of the coin is a little dated. It’s no longer accurate with the rise of cable and the internet, but was certainly true of the Rather era, which is what makes this episode so interesting. But it doesn’t sound as though the film will be telling that story.

Way too early to assume this will win Academy Awards, or even be completed and released in cinemas for that matter. Although I think you’re being facetious.

Also, there’s a lot more diversity of opinion in New York and LA than you think. You should give other cities and regions the benefit of the doubt if you desire it in return.

By: HistoryofMatt

07.10.2014 @ 12:39 AM

I read the book on which this film is being based.

Mary Mapes spends the whole book defending the indefensible.

She continues to lie, and worse, although it was many, many different reputable (and irreputable) who called her and her source out for being liars and fabricating evidence and the whole story, she sets up one singular straw man blogger as a crazy “voice in the desert” for ruining her career.

The whole book is a work of fiction. She lied. Rather is not a tragic figure. He hated W and decided this was the way to get him gone, whether it was true or not. Rather had long ago, before 2004, given up any claim of being an objective journalist.

As for your other comment, it’s not entirely accurate.

Yes, the media as we knew it has fractured.

But what is still considered mainstream, which is not Fox News, but ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, The New York Times and various and sundry newspapers around the country… they all currently exist as entirely biased organizations, having given up their sacred duty to hold ALL in power accountable, whether they happen to vote for them or not.

As for your other point, yes, I was being facetious. :-)

But the other point I’m not being facetious. That people are determined to make this book into a film show just how delusional they are. And again, like with CBS in 2004 (it was Mapes who broke Abu Ghraib, btw), it’s not like they don’t have factual information from which they can pull to make W look incompetent.

Instead they’re choosing to continue to try and give credence to a ridiculously insulting lie by telling Mapes’ side of story, which is again, more lies.

By: John G.

07.10.2014 @ 12:44 AM

I’m not personally sympathetic to Rather. Quite the opposite. But that’s how I’d make this story into a movie. A fall from grace.

By: John G.

07.10.2014 @ 12:17 AM

I remember thinking for years that this story would make a great film. It’s a pivotal moment in the demise of traditional media, which gave birth to the dysfunctional system we have today. I pictured Rather as a tragic figure, who in a moment of weakness blemished the credibility of the evening news, damaging the legacy of Murrow and Cronkite and leaving the news world without a figure of trust and authority. I thought Tommy Lee Jones could play him. Based on Deadline’s blurb on the source, that won’t be the film we’ll be getting.